Lots of Time Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.
This statement is false. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict that "something dead will come to life by some method or another". I do not know where you have obtained this information, but it is completely inaccurate.
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another.
This statement is also false, as
speciation has been observed.
Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters. Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable.
This statement is founded upon a false premise, and thus has no meaning.
If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old.
This statement is demonstratably false.
Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are: Continental erosion
This argument assumes that continents are static entites that only change geologically through erosion.
this is not the case, thus the claim that erosion demonstrates a young earth is false.
Sea floor sediments
Sea floor sediments vary from location to location, based both upon age and geological events shifting sediment. Sea floor sediments do not demonstrate a young earth.
Salinity of the oceans
This claim is based upon ignorance of processes by which salt is removed from the ocean.
Helium in the atmosphere
This claim is based upon helium released during radioactive decay; creationists claim that not enough helium is in the atmosphere for billions of years of decay,
however they neglect to consider that helium is light enough to escape the earth's atmosphere, and thus there is no reason to expect all helium released from all radioactive decay throughout the earth's history to be represented in the atmosphere.
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
This statement is based upon a faulty assumption regarding the ratio of Carbon-14 decay to Carbon-14 release in the atmosphere, and also
relies on an assumption that contradicts the next claim that you make.
Decay of the Earth's magnetic
This claim relies on the
faulty assumption of a constant rate of decay.
The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.
No evidence is given to support this claim.
. The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours.
This is based upon a misuse of dating techniques; the technique used for dating the rocks can never give an age under two million years and as such is not given for any samples known to be under two-million years of age.
The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
No actual evidence for this claim is given, all that are offered are references to demonstratably false claims.
This statement is also false, as speciation has been observed.From YOUR article: 3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature.
As usual, you have provided me with absolutely nothing.
<
In a science article out today: Using a mathematical model based on the body size and temperature-dependence of individual metabolism, the researchers made specific predictions on rates of speciation at the global scale.
If it is observable why do they need a mathematical model? Sheesh No actual evidence for this claim is given, all that are offered are references to demonstratably false claims.
And that is all you provide. References. Give me a break. Works for you but can't work for creos.